Religion can be divided into two broad categories: revealed and mystical, each with further subdivisions. Historically, mystical streams have attached themselves to all branches of revealed religion, some of which have grown so popular as to become the universally-recognized face of that particular religion. While this is true, what is equally undeniable is that there is hardly any overlap between the fundamentals of revealed and mystical religions. In practice (or applications of fundamentals), there may be any number of apparent similarities; but so far as the principles themselves are concerned, the two types could not possibly be more different.
The fact that millions of folks (many notable scholars included) have purportedly been able to ‘reconcile’ the two owes merely to lazy, selective, inconsistent and convenient application of fundamentals. For if the fundamentals are applied consistently, there is no way anybody can help running into intractable contradictions and confusions. Christianity is the most obvious case in point but Islam too is not far behind, given that many celebrated scholars have favoured and promoted a mystical interpretation of Islam (Tasawwuf or Sufism) with vast sections of the Muslim society adopting it over the centuries.
Like philosophy in general, religious philosophy deals with three fundamental issues. In other words, a thoughtful religious man cannot help asking himself three fundamental questions, which are inexorably intertwined with one another (note that the most non-religious of man ultimately has the exact same issues to contend with.)
1.   What is the nature (or the origin) of existence?
2.   What should man’s ultimate goal be, according to which he should try and figure out his best course of action?
3.   How, and with what degree of certainty, can he know the answers to these fundamental questions?
In what follows, I propose to take up these questions one by one and show how their answers have nothing in common when one compares revealed religions with the mystical ones.
Let us start with the first question (ontology). As per the revealed texts, God is responsible for all existence. But God, on His part, cannot be said to ‘exist’ because the concept of existence cannot be extricated from subjection to time and space. God is Absolute; that is, beyond any constraint or framework, including that of space-time. He is therefore outside the scheme of things so to speak. The ontological picture presented by revealed religions, then, is strictly Transcendental Monotheism, with God and the universe being two distinct entities. There is no room in this picture for monism, pantheism, or anything of that sort. Mystics, to the contrary, believe in pantheism. The distinction between creator and creation, to them, is an illusion. Everything is ultimately a manifestation of God. The contrasting ontological metaphysic put forward by the revealed texts and by the mystics each has a direct bearing on how either religion views the ultimate goal for man.
This brings us to our second question, namely the ultimate goal to attain to which he should use the immense potential at his disposal. That, according to revealed religions, is Paradise, where man will neither have fear of the future nor regret of the past. God being pleased with him and he with God is the ultimate success for man. There he will be happy, contented, and successful, but he will remain a man nevertheless. This could not be more at odds with mysticism, whose explicit or implicit goal is to become one with God (variously referred to as Union or Communion) even though adherents of either type of religion could very well (apparently) be seen to be striving to cleanse themselves of the same vices and weaknesses that tempt man.
Which brings us to our final question (epistemology). According to the revealed religions, the totality of truth is ineffable. When it comes to the fundamental facts, man is given but little knowledge. The person of God, for example, is beyond the limits of man’s knowledge. His knowledge suffices for his purpose of course, which is to live a successful life. He can wrap his head around the attributes of God, His Habits, and the concept of the Hereafter (from man’s own point of view); but the details or the mechanics at play are beyond his grasp. For example, man is told that the Transcendent God, reaching down from beyond, actively regulates the affairs of the world in His characteristic manner; but there is no way man fathom how He does it.
Man’s source of knowledge of this sort (as opposed to empirical, scientific knowledge) is revelation (hence the term ‘revealed’ religion). Man can figure out some of the things for himself, but for many others he has no alternative but to rely on revelation. This information, which is by no means beyond reason, is certainly beyond reasoning. In other words, man on his own steam, could not possibly have figured it out; but now that he knows it (through revelation), there is nothing unreasonable about any of it.
Furthermore, as per the revealed texts, God does not reveal this information to just anybody; instead, he chooses certain men (prophets) as recipients of His revelation. This is purely God’s prerogative, and there is nothing a man can do to prepare and present himself for the task. In mystical religions on the other hand, anybody who is willing to put in time and effort can make himself eligible for such communication. The prescribed mechanisms are meditation and ‘spiritual’ exercises.
According to revealed religions, in fundamental matters man can at best attain plausible, probable knowledge. God and the Hereafter cannot be experienced sensually any more than they can be logically or mathematically proven. Mystics on the other hand not only claim to be able to know the person of God and to interact directly with the angels, see life in trees, hear the sound of ants walking on hard rock in the dead of night, and observe Paradise and Hell; but they also offer their disciples the opportunity to achieve such spiritual levels under their able tutelage.
It is obvious, then, that revealed religions and mysticism are two parallel philosophies that could not be more different as far as their fundamentals are concerned. What follows is that any similarities between the two (as in application of the principles to derived beliefs and practices) are merely superficial; and therefore, that they must not be allowed to mislead anyone into believing that the two types of religion have any overlap whatsoever. Those who have attempted to combine them (and there have been millions) have merely managed to create hotchpotches that do not stand up to careful scrutiny. Never let the popularity of such hotchpotches make you think otherwise.
